Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

endacl · 27-04-2015 1:02pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Marriage is a 5000 year old tradition that has sustained society. It should not be redefined to cater for a minority who already have civil partnerships.
I'm sorry if gay people wnat to marry and feel aggrieved about not being allowed, but there's plenty of people who are born with conditions that preclude them from doing things yet they don't scream equality about it. Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no. No need to open Pandoras box by messing with it.

Has it? Really...?

endacl · 27-04-2015 1:03pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Stan's right to have babies. I got that.

Which brings us back to my question. Your honest reason for not wanting this to pass?

P_1 · 27-04-2015 1:04pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've been struck, on a daily basis, and the incapacity of Yes voters to produce a case for this amendment, and to demonstrate any understanding of the issues involved.

I've been even more struck by their inability to read and respond to points already made.

I thought it was rather self explanatory. If the amendment passes two people, irrespective of their gender, will be allowed to enter into a civil contract with each other, this contract is called marriage.

Bannasidhe · 27-04-2015 1:05pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've demonstrated my point. It doesn't involve identification of a definition. That's an irrelevance that you've introduced in an attempt to deflect.

Very Cork.

No. You haven't.

You have blustered and bluffed and issued dire warnings that government which already regulates marriage via legislation will regulate marriage but provided zero evidence of anything which is rooted in the Constitution.

'Very Cork' - honestly. Is that the level you want to 'debate' at?

endacl · 27-04-2015 1:07pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Stan's right to have babies. I got that.

That'd be more of a gender identity question. Also, she expressed a preference to be referred to as Loretta. There was no indication in that scene of Loretta's sexual orientation. Or of her desire to marry.

desertcircus · 27-04-2015 1:08pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Marriage is a 5000 year old tradition that has sustained society. It should not be redefined to cater for a minority who already have civil partnerships.
I'm sorry if gay people wnat to marry and feel aggrieved about not being allowed, but there's plenty of people who are born with conditions that preclude them from doing things yet they don't scream equality about it. Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no. No need to open Pandoras box by messing with it.

You haven't actually given a reason, just made a few statements and then claimed they made an argument. "Marriage should not be redefined", but why? "Plenty of people are unable to do certain things", but you do nothing to link this with gay marriage. You just leave it there and hope a point will appear out of nothing.You don't even bother trying to explain how gay marriage will have an impact on straight marriage; again and again, you just say something and pretend you've actually made a point.

endacl · 27-04-2015 1:09pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah.

Now I understand.
It's really just the same old can't let the gays get their hand on children irrelevancy.

Did you not read my post?!?

:mad:

Bannasidhe · 27-04-2015 1:11pm

endacl wrote: »

Did you not read my post?!?

:mad:

Dude - strange things are happening with my rural 'broadband'. Apologies. Dunno what happened there like...

endacl · 27-04-2015 1:16pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dude - strange things are happening with my rural 'broadband'. Apologies. Dunno what happened there like...

It's de feckin' gays. Up to dey're unnatural shenanigans again. Jaysus, day'll be wantin' de wifi next. Redifining d'internet. Underminin' my normal, straight wifi. Dey should be happy with dialup.

I won't stand for it, I tell ye. Think of the children!

:mad:

Maximus Alexander · 27-04-2015 1:27pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no.

That's not a reason. That statement is logically equivalent to "Drink coffee is my reason for drinking coffee".

endacl · 27-04-2015 1:29pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's not a reason. That statement is logically equivalent to "Drink coffee is my reason for drinking coffee".

I dunno... Makes sense, in a Zen kinda way...?

gk5000 · 27-04-2015 2:04pm

We can be equal without being the same.
Women and Men can be treated equally by the law, even though they are obviously different,

However, men cannot be mothers, and women cannot be fathers no matter how much we/some wish it so.

And it makes no sense to have two married men or two married women on a birth cert. (A child is automatically a product of a married couple under our law)

So voting Yes actually makes no sense in this regard i.e. non-sense or nonsense.

So people please get a grip an understand part of what voting yes means. Vote NO - change the law if needed on the above and then re-consider a new referendum.

MrWalsh · 27-04-2015 2:08pm

gk5000 wrote: »

We can be equal without being the same.
Women and Men can be treated equally by the law, even though they are obviously different,

However, men cannot be mothers, and women cannot be fathers no matter how much we/some wish it so.

And it makes no sense to have two married men or two married women on a birth cert. (A child is automatically a product of a married couple under our law)

So voting Yes actually makes no sense in this regard i.e. non-sense or nonsense.

So people please get a grip an understand part of what voting yes means. Vote NO - change the law if needed on the above and then re-consider a new referendum.

Umm, this referendum will have no impact on birth certs no matter which way the vote goes.

Currently a heterosexual married couple have to put the husband as father on a birthcert even if he is not the father because all children born within a marriage are seen as the husbands children. But this referendum has nothing to do with having children or birth certs.

Its simply about allowing same sex couples to marry, you know, because civil partnerships are not equal to marriage.

seamus · 27-04-2015 2:08pm

Why are you bringing children into this?

This referendum has nothing to do with children. Maybe go and read the proposed amendment and then re-consider your position?

Bannasidhe · 27-04-2015 2:12pm

gk5000 wrote: »

A child is automatically a product of a married couple under our law

That is complete nonsense.

Neither of my grandchildren is the product of a married couple.

They are not unique by any means.

In 2012 alone

Just less than 34 per cent of births [in the year were to parents who were not married to each other. However, of those, more than half were to cohabiting couples.

http://www.thejournal.ie/cso-vital-statistics-marriage-births-death-516987-Jul2012/

That is 34% of 74,650 registered births in one year alone were not 'the product of a married couple'.

Also - this has nothing to do with the Referendum.

Alf Veedersane · 27-04-2015 2:18pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Leave marriage to hetrosexual couples is my reason for voting no. No need to open Pandoras box by messing with it.

Because heterosexual couples give it the respect it deserves.

Though you could argue De Gays wouldn't be messing with Pandora's box inallinanywayas.

endacl · 27-04-2015 2:25pm

seamus wrote: »

Why are you bringing children into this?

This referendum has nothing to do with children. Maybe go and read the proposed amendment and then re-consider your position?

See what I meant? The only childlike aspect to this referendum is in that kind of toddler-think, dressed up to sound adult.

:rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 3:25pm

endacl wrote: »

Which brings us back to my question. Your honest reason for not wanting this to pass?

Has already been stated several times. Believe it or not, some of us actually like laws to be coherent.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Very Cork' - honestly. Is that the level you want to 'debate' at?

But, sure, that's where you're dragging it. In this specific instance, you're using the technique of picking some arbitrary point and repeating it as if it was central to deciding something.

endacl wrote: »

That'd be more of a gender identity question. Also, she expressed a preference to be referred to as Loretta. There was no indication in that scene of Loretta's sexual orientation. Or of her desire to marry.

And it's such a good scene that you didn't manage to kill it there.

P_1 wrote: »

I thought it was rather self explanatory. If the amendment passes two people, irrespective of their gender, will be allowed to enter into a civil contract with each other, this contract is called marriage.

Which would be fine if that could be done coherently. The issue, as already pointed out, is that the legal concept of marriage contains elements that just don't make sense for same sex relationships.

One example is the concept of consummation, an important concept in marriage validity. In the UK, they've been unable to find a definition of consummation that can be applied to same sex marriages. In Ireland, we seem to be pretending that no issue exists.

Ditto for the presumption of paternity. A coherent protection for children in a straight marriage context. Complete nonsense in the case of a gay marriage.

The usual run of play at this stage is to let these substantial points sit, and find a post on the thread by some religious loon that you can respond by the usual vacuous appeal to equality.

Bannasidhe · 27-04-2015 3:58pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Has already been stated several times. Believe it or not, some of us actually like laws to be coherent.But, sure, that's where you're dragging it. In this specific instance, you're using the technique of picking some arbitrary point and repeating it as if it was central to deciding something.And it's such a good scene that you didn't manage to kill it there.Which would be fine if that could be done coherently. The issue, as already pointed out, is that the legal concept of marriage contains elements that just don't make sense for same sex relationships.

One example is the concept of consummation, an important concept in marriage validity. In the UK, they've been unable to find a definition of consummation that can be applied to same sex marriages. In Ireland, we seem to be pretending that no issue exists.

Ditto for the presumption of paternity. A coherent protection for children in a straight marriage context. Complete nonsense in the case of a gay marriage.

The usual run of play at this stage is to let these substantial points sit, and find a post on the thread by some religious loon that you can respond by the usual vacuous appeal to equality.

Still zero actual evidence there.

Please provide the Constitutional definition of marriage which you fear will become subject to governmental regulation.
One either exists or it doesn't.

If it does you should have no problem sharing it (in a non-geographical specific way). If it doesn't then you are scaremongering.

oscarBravo · 27-04-2015 4:09pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The issue, as already pointed out, is that the legal concept of marriage contains elements that just don't make sense for same sex relationships.

So the question becomes: do we postpone equality indefinitely until those nit-pickery aspects are addressed to your satisfaction, or do we address a civil rights deficit first, and deal with the consequences, insofar as they are consequences, as required?

I mean, really: the presumption of paternity doesn't make sense in the context of a same-sex marriage - so what? If it doesn't arise, it doesn't arise. Why is it a problem?

Similarly, consummation. What practical obstacle does this present - as a real-world problem, not an exercise in legalistic omphaloskepsis - to the introduction of same-sex marriage?

P_1 · 27-04-2015 4:45pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Has already been stated several times. Believe it or not, some of us actually like laws to be coherent.But, sure, that's where you're dragging it. In this specific instance, you're using the technique of picking some arbitrary point and repeating it as if it was central to deciding something.And it's such a good scene that you didn't manage to kill it there.Which would be fine if that could be done coherently. The issue, as already pointed out, is that the legal concept of marriage contains elements that just don't make sense for same sex relationships.

One example is the concept of consummation, an important concept in marriage validity. In the UK, they've been unable to find a definition of consummation that can be applied to same sex marriages. In Ireland, we seem to be pretending that no issue exists.

Ditto for the presumption of paternity. A coherent protection for children in a straight marriage context. Complete nonsense in the case of a gay marriage.

The usual run of play at this stage is to let these substantial points sit, and find a post on the thread by some religious loon that you can respond by the usual vacuous appeal to equality.

Nowhere in the constitution are any of those items explicitly referred to so they have nothing to do with we are being asked to vote on. I'd imagine such matters will be hashed out through legal precedent in the divorce courts in the years to come but for this debate they have zero relevance.

sydthebeat · 27-04-2015 4:59pm

GCU just doesnt understand the basic fundemental right

Equality before the law
All citizens in Ireland shall be held equal before the law. .

GCU and his ilk perpetuate an argument FOR inequality before the law

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 5:01pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

<..> a civil rights deficit <...>

What civil rights deficit? What actual problem exists that requires the legal framework around marriage?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I mean, really: the presumption of paternity doesn't make sense in the context of a same-sex marriage - so what? If it doesn't arise, it doesn't arise. Why is it a problem?

The problem is the amendment states there will be no distinction in marriage law based on gender. You are assuming that we'll still be able to provide differently for straight and gay marriages. We won't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Similarly, consummation. What practical obstacle does this present - as a real-world problem, not an exercise in legalistic omphaloskepsis - to the introduction of same-sex marriage?

If the concept is meaningless for same-sex marriages (which it seems to be, based on the UK experience) it means that all same-sex marriages will be potentially voidable. So, by voting Yes, you'll just be creating a farcical situation.

Because you can't dismiss this as "nit-picking", just because you essentially don't want to think in any meaningful way about how you exercise your vote.

P_1 wrote: »

Nowhere in the constitution are any of those items explicitly referred to so they have nothing to do with we are being asked to vote on.

That has to be the non-sequitur of the year.

scary · 27-04-2015 5:06pm

golfball37 wrote: »

I'm sorry if gay people wnat to marry and feel aggrieved about not being allowed, but there's plenty of people who are born with conditions that preclude them from doing things yet they don't scream equality about it.

what exactly are you implying here?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 5:14pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

GCU just doesnt understand the basic fundemental right

Equality before the law
All citizens in Ireland shall be held equal before the law. .

GCU and his ilk perpetuate an argument FOR inequality before the law

Ironically, you actually don't understand the significance of the principle you've posted there. People are equal before the law.

That's different to the question of what the law should be.

sydthebeat · 27-04-2015 5:23pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's different to the question of what the law should be.

rubbish, you do not want the law governing civil marriage made open, in an equal manner, for persons with no discrimination as to their sexuality or gender.

the scaremongering from the no side is despicable.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 5:51pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

rubbish, you do not want the law governing civil marriage made open, in an equal manner, for persons with no discrimination as to their sexuality or gender.

the scaremongering from the no side is despicable.

I doubt that it's possible to achieve that result. I also doubt that it's necessary. I've done no scaremongering, even if you obviously wish I had. I find the situation farcical, rather than scary.

oscarBravo · 27-04-2015 6:00pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What civil rights deficit?

The fact that same-sex couples can't get married.

What actual problem exists that requires the legal framework around marriage?

The inability to marry.

If you disagree that this is a civil rights issue, perhaps you could explain why you don't think being unable to marry is a civil rights issue, rather than having it dragged out of you like pulling teeth.

The problem is the amendment states there will be no distinction in marriage law based on gender. You are assuming that we'll still be able to provide differently for straight and gay marriages. We won't.

Don't assume what I'm assuming. I don't see a requirement to provide differently for straight and gay marriages. If practical issues arise, we can deal with them.

If the concept is meaningless for same-sex marriages (which it seems to be, based on the UK experience) it means that all same-sex marriages will be potentially voidable. So, by voting Yes, you'll just be creating a farcical situation.

Let's see: by voting Yes, there's the possibility that the question of voidability of same-sex marriages will have to be addressed at some point in law. By voting No, we'll be denying same-sex couples the right to marry at all.

If I have to choose between denying people civil rights and having to tidy up some laws later, I think my choice is clear.

endacl · 27-04-2015 6:03pm

scary wrote: »

what exactly are you implying here?

Don't open that can of worms...

sydthebeat · 27-04-2015 6:14pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I doubt that it's possible to achieve that result. .

No need to doubt.

That result will be achieved by a yes vote.

Is that what you find "farcical"?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 7:35pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The fact that same-sex couples can't get married.

Ah, the totally circular argument defence. Nothing can defeat a tautology.

oscarBravo wrote: »

perhaps you could explain why you don't think being unable to marry is a civil rights issue

I'll use the kind of argument you seem to understand. Because it isn't.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't see a requirement to provide differently for straight and gay marriages.

And this is despite the requirement being clearly set out for you.

What you're really saying is you're voting Yes, but that you are incapable of saying why. Fine. No-one said you had to be rational.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 7:38pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is that what you find "farcical"?

Oh, let's see it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

MrWalsh · 27-04-2015 7:49pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, let's see it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

What does transphobia have to do with anything?

oscarBravo · 27-04-2015 8:47pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, the totally circular argument defence. Nothing can defeat a tautology.

Well, there's always the "I'll refuse to make a point and just use rhetorical questions to make it seem like I have one" attack.

And this is despite the requirement being clearly set out for you.

You seem to feel that unless there's a way to void a marriage because of impotence, the very idea that such a marriage could be allowed to exist is inconceivable (pardon the pun).

Has it crossed your mind that, if anyone feels strongly enough about it - heck, maybe you feel strongly enough about it yourself - they could always lobby for an update to the relevant 1870 law.

What you're really saying is you're voting Yes, but that you are incapable of saying why. Fine. No-one said you had to be rational.

I'll spell my reasoning out, in a way that you seem unwilling to do yourself: I'm voting Yes, because I think that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, and the reasons offered for denying them that right - like the inviolable sanctity of nineteenth-century laws on voidability, or because God, or ewww, gheys - are unconvincing to me.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 27-04-2015 10:30pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to feel that unless there's a way to void a marriage because of impotence, the very idea that such a marriage could be allowed to exist is inconceivable (pardon the pun).

That's very clearly not what I've said, but I've noted that you can't actually square your decision to vote yes with the simply realities.

sydthebeat · 27-04-2015 11:01pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's very clearly not what I've said, but I've noted that you can't actually square your decision to vote yes with the simply realities.

the simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes in order allow a gay couple the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

anything else is side issues.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 28-04-2015 12:48am

The simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes because they've a vague idea that a gay couple can be shoehorned into the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

Anything else they just don't want to hear.

I could try to be polite about it, but this is absolutely the most miserable referendum process I've ever had the misfortune to experience. Remind me when the vote takes place, so that I can count the days until it's over and I can look at a news site again without the risk of seeing a mention of it.

scary · 28-04-2015 12:52am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes because they've a vague idea that a gay couple can be shoehorned into the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

you're wrong people are voting yes because they have compassion for people and are not prejudiced.

Maximus Alexander · 28-04-2015 12:53am

For someone who's sick of it being mentioned you're spending a fair amount of time talking around it.

endacl · 28-04-2015 12:58am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I could try to be polite about it, but this is absolutely the most miserable referendum process I've ever had the misfortune to experience.

Finally. Common ground.

constance tench · 28-04-2015 1:16am

bee06 wrote: »

Maybe your interpretation of the article but realistically the article is open to all kinds of interpretation. Without a specific definition of "the family" then the family is different things to different people and in my opinion no one had the right to impose their definition onto anyone else.

It may be inferred from Article 41 that all citizens are 'the Family' and are already constitutionally protected.

Btrippn · 28-04-2015 2:15am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes because they've a vague idea that a gay couple can be shoehorned into the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

Anything else they just don't want to hear.

I could try to be polite about it, but this is absolutely the most miserable referendum process I've ever had the misfortune to experience. Remind me when the vote takes place, so that I can count the days until it's over and I can look at a news site again without the risk of seeing a mention of it.

Most people are voting Yes because they realise it means a lot to a proportion of the Irish public. They are being selfless. They also feel that it doesn't affect their own lives significantly enough to vote no.

Marriage in general promotes stability and has other benefits that are not outlined in the legal documentations that you seem to focus on. You are very articulate but you have limited perception and have approached this referendum with very little empathy.

You're life will not change in any way after this "miserable referendum" ends, regardless of the result, I don't understand why you're getting so annoyed.

CramCycle · 28-04-2015 9:19am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The simple reality is most yes voters are voting yes because they've a vague idea that a gay couple can be shoehorned into the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as a hetro couple.

Not just shoehorned but if the Irish public vote Yes in the majority they will find that they won't be shoehorned but will be flat out entitled to the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as every other Irish person.

Some would have you believe that there are items in law that don't make such a thing possible. Those people clearly have no idea how the law works in regards to the constitution.

If a law doesn't apply to a person for whatever reason, it simply does not apply.

If someone is concerned about the meaning of a word in law and how it may apply to them or a group of the population or the population as a whole, it can be tested in court, this will result in the law becoming inoperable, the court deciding on a definition of the word for legal clarity (which can be tested) or for the government to write into law a definition of said word that makes the law operable.

If the law suddenly becomes unconstitutional because of a change to the constitution, while there is an onus on the government of the day to amend it (there are several on the books I am sure), it can also be treated as inoperable (something that is done on a daily basis with several laws) or it can be tested in the supreme courts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 28-04-2015 10:39am

CramCycle wrote: »

Not just shoehorned but if the Irish public vote Yes in the majority they will find that they won't be shoehorned but will be flat out entitled to the same civil marriage rights and entitlements as every other Irish person.

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

Maximus Alexander · 28-04-2015 10:50am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

I presume consummation is defined in the same part of the constitution that defines marriage?

CramCycle · 28-04-2015 10:58am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

Can you give a link to the act or law that defines consummation? It is commonly accepted in the current climate, legally, as the act of penetration by the male of the female (can't find it saying vaginal anywhere), but that is more for a short cut as up until now that is the only scenario that has been brought up as far as I know. No one has brought a case where the wife using other appendages or instruments, penetrated the man, or whether the penetration has been elsewhere (i.e. not vaginal).

Legally though, it is, as far as I know, simply the stated act of sexual intercourse. I hate to break it to you. But both hetero and homo couples are capable of sexual intercourse. I cannot find where the act is defined in law, if you could that would be great, clears alot up, but I know plenty of couples who have engaged in sexual intercourse without a penis entering a vagina.

Obviously, your concerns will be easily addressed in a court room if the legislation is passed and a judge, on the first annulment sought on these grounds, the judge can interpret the spirit of the law and decide whether or not sexual intercourse had or had not taken place.

Following on from this though, if there is an issue, this will be addressed in time by the legal system and the government. Personally, I can't see the issue. I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe or can see proof that what you are saying is either correct or an issue.

Greyian · 28-04-2015 10:59am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. That means every one of them will be a voidable marriage, as the concept of consummation still applies - it just can't be fulfilled.

If the definition of consummation was changed to include oral, anal or vaginal intercourse, then it would be applicable to hetero- and homosexual marriages.

There's also the question of whether consummation of marriage is terribly important today. I don't think people are as committed to maintaining their virtue until their wedding night anymore.

seamus · 28-04-2015 11:03am

Look at all this vague, archaic and easily-changed law that brings up some minor questions when applied in the case of same-sex marriage! Ye Gods, what are we going to do if a "Yes" vote succeeds? Change the laws?! You can't do that!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 28-04-2015 11:08am

Greyian wrote: »

If the definition of consummation was changed to include oral, anal or vaginal intercourse, then it would be applicable to hetero- and homosexual marriages.

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

CramCycle · 28-04-2015 11:10am

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it's that simple, can I suggest you look into why they didn't do that in the UK when they faced exactly the same problem.

Can I ask then, if it is an issue (which by the way, you still have not shown it to be), why do you look to the UK for issues when solutions to a minor and in the eyes of many, non existent, issues are provided.

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments